I still disagree. You got annoyed when someone said NV should have been an expansion pack, and that game actually had more in common technically (meaning the engine) than MW3 does with MW2.

I'm not really judging it based on its engine. I'm judging it based on content. While FNV had some recycled content from FO3, most of the content was completely new. It took place in a completely new setting and had a completely new story. It also introduced some new gameplay mechanics and had much more open-ended quest design in general.

Conversely, each CoD game is pretty much the same as the last. They introduce some new weapons and perks with each entry but that's about it. The gameplay mechanics remain unchanged, as does the general level design.

Wonder where we'll end up next. Nothing has really shown any signs of appearing. Personally I'm still a fan of games that start modern and end elsewhere.

I think "near-future" is going to be the next fad. MW3 already has some futuristic technology and Ghost Recon: Future Soldier will too.

You can say that about almost any modern military shooter series. The inherent problem with modern military shooters is that they all draw from the same pool of inspiration. Same weapons, same factions, same vehicles, same locations, same premise. Military shooters are one of the least creative genres out there, second only to sports games. It doesn't help that most military shooters are completely scripted and linear experiences with Hollywood realism. When you release a CoD game each year that's only superficially different from its predecessors, it's pretty fair to consider it as insignificant as an expansion pack

I still disagree. You got annoyed when someone said NV should have been an expansion pack, and that game actually had more in common technically (meaning the engine) than MW3 does with MW2.

But I do agree about the modern shooter comment. Just look at this trailer: war in the middle of the world's biggest western cities. Modern shooters are going as far as they can. Quite honestly I think they're back is against a wall here and there's extremely little room to take it to the next level (though they've had more room to grow than WWII shooters did.)

Wonder where we'll end up next. Nothing has really shown any signs of appearing. Personally I'm still a fan of games that start modern and end elsewhere.

You can say that about almost any modern military shooter series. The inherent problem with modern military shooters is that they all draw from the same pool of inspiration. Same weapons, same factions, same vehicles, same locations, same premise. Military shooters are one of the least creative genres out there, second only to sports games. It doesn't help that most military shooters are completely scripted and linear experiences with Hollywood realism. When you release a CoD game each year that's only superficially different from its predecessors, it's pretty fair to consider it as insignificant as an expansion pack.

Care to explain why I am wrong, or why my statement about CSS being the last real twitch shooter is incorrect?

Bhruic wrote on May 24, 2011, 08:28:I don't blame them, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it. If I like fine wine, and the majority of people like beer, companies are going to start pumping out more beer and less fine wine. It's a smart business decision, perhaps, but it does mean I've got less choices for fine wine.

I certainly don't mind people wishing the populace liked different things. I mean Avatar? Really?

What I am saying is silly is acting like Activision is wrong. I see a ton of posts about CoD from people where they basically say "stop making this trash" and that is the height of idiocy.

Mcboinkens wrote on May 24, 2011, 03:01:On a seperate note, I think the word twitch shooting is being overused lately. There hasn't been a single twitch shooter since CSS, in my opinion. If you want a real skill check, that's where you go.

You are clueless. Are you sure you are playing CoD games?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Yes I am playing CoD games, and I don't think they are twitch shooters. Care to explain why I am wrong, or why my statement about CSS being the last real twitch shooter is incorrect? You do know what CSS is, right?

8-10 hour SP campaigns? Haven't the last four games had 4-5 hour campaigns?

MW 1 and 2 were 7.5 hours on hardest difficulty for a decent player, give or take.

Anywho, I think people consider CoD sequels as expansion packs because the formula is basically the same in each one. The SP campaign is completely linear and scripted, with obligatory vehicle, sniping and stealth segments included for good measure. You are always fighting communists and/or terrorists. You are always playing as a member of either the British or U.S. military.

I can through that at virtually any series of games, though. If the content is new the content is new. If the engine is new then it's certainly not an expansion.I get calling it a frustrating game with huge, glaring flaws. I get saying it's not fun. I get saying it's overpriced based on content. But I don't get calling it an expansion. An expansion is a very specific thing. This may be low on content but it doesn't fit what an expansion is. It's pretty clearly a sequel.

You really think a studio would charge $20 for an "expansion" that has 8-10 hours of single player, brand new maps, guns, perks, and game types? That would be an absurd business model.

8-10 hour SP campaigns? Haven't the last four games had 4-5 hour campaigns?

Anywho, I think people consider CoD sequels as expansion packs because the formula is basically the same in each one. The SP campaign is completely linear and scripted, with obligatory vehicle, sniping and stealth segments included for good measure. You are always fighting communists and/or terrorists. You are always playing as a member of either the British or U.S. military.

Eventually it will die out like Guitar Hero and World War 2, but it hasn't yet and you can't blame a company for making more of what people love.

I don't blame them, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it. If I like fine wine, and the majority of people like beer, companies are going to start pumping out more beer and less fine wine. It's a smart business decision, perhaps, but it does mean I've got less choices for fine wine.

Still, I don't see actually whining about it. Just like you're looking out for your interests, the company is looking out for theirs. All people can hope is that the companies making the games that you like are making profits, and will continue to make them. Because complaining won't stop companies like Activision contuining to pump out the CoDs.

Mcboinkens wrote on May 24, 2011, 03:01:On a seperate note, I think the word twitch shooting is being overused lately. There hasn't been a single twitch shooter since CSS, in my opinion. If you want a real skill check, that's where you go.

As others have said, fighting against the waves of "look at me I am superior to others" bullshit, this series is successful and sells well because people LIKE IT. They like the multiplayer, they like the singleplayer, they think the package is worth $60 a year. It would not sell more and more copies every iteration if people did not like it.

Piss and moan all you want, it changes nothing. Eventually it will die out like Guitar Hero and World War 2, but it hasn't yet and you can't blame a company for making more of what people love.

Mcboinkens wrote on May 24, 2011, 03:01:Based on the amount of stupidity running rampant through this thread, I won't quote anyone specific.

Here's a few points I wanted to make, though:

-Game experience is highly opinionated.-Opinions cannot, and should not, be forced onto other people.-Just because you don't like a game does not mean it is garbage.

I've played every Battlefield game since it's original release. I've also played every COD game since the original. The two series have two completely different objectives. BF focuses more on teamwork, vehicles, and less on "twitch" shooting. CoD focuses more on each individual team member, customization, and adrenaline.

This isn't an expansion pack. It's a new game, with a new setting. People bitched and moaned that they needed to get the setting out of the Middle East, and they listened. We're dealing with WW3 now, a concept that has been surprisingly underused lately. Yeah, some of the perks will probably be the same. Probably some similar killstreaks too. But this isn't a mod or anything, its a rehauled game. The only thing I could possibly see as a point for people that few this games as expansions is that the engine is the same. But the games are being cranked out yearly and the engine really is fine, so I don't see the problem. You really think a studio would charge $20 for an "expansion" that has 8-10 hours of single player, brand new maps, guns, perks, and game types? That would be an absurd business model.

I just can't believe it that people complain these games get released too often, and then turn around and complain when the HL:2 Episodes are taking too long. If anything, *those* are just "expansions", and they are taking way too damn long to make them. But that's a topic for another time.

I really don't see the hate for CoD. It's probably because I play it on a console, so I never had to deal with the hackers or the dedicated server issue. The game is fun. Make a squad with a few of your buddies and have a good time. Do some search and destroy, get that heart-rate up, and then laugh at your friend when he completely messes up the clutch save. Do a free for all with riot shield and throwing knives only. It can be a lot of fun if you know what you are doing.

I like the BF series as much as the next guy, but there is only so much running across the map I can do before I need a change, and that's why CoD's tiny maps are perfect at what they do. They keep you in the action at all times, and the games focuses on you, and you alone. What killstreaks do you want? perks? Everyone is watching *you* try to win the match.

On a seperate note, I think the word twitch shooting is being overused lately. There hasn't been a single twitch shooter since CSS, in my opinion. If you want a real skill check, that's where you go.

Well IMHO, I call anything "Twitch" that has Kills in the 30s and 40s and its all about killing, While it can be fun , the community is ALWAYS full of lil internet warriors that get carried AWAY with that Adrenalin, and their Attitude sucks, and Yes while Quake WAS different then COD or MOD with its CTF, Freeze Quake (miss that) and UT and its many online mods (loved the mini ones where you were small and the setting was oversized location).... But still, they were adrenalin pumping twitch type shoters with Kills in the 50-60s in short matches.. and SOME had 100 points as score. COD is a slower version of the classic twitch game, smaller maps, no vehicles, HIGH SCORING, FAST, rambo , solo type all about the kills... Been playing those since day one... And I can say that...DAY ONE. BF3 will CHANGE the online MASS shooter as we know it. And COD and MOH will be churning out 1 a year sequels using the same ole tired engine. The Battle field team actually TOOK our money and made a better engine (upgraded) and we are getting a TRUE sequel..

Any fool that keeps dropping money on the CODs and MOHs are fools, until those companies truly evolve and give us something new, they are just getting the addicts and fools money right now.

Is this a meme, or are you repeating this despite being made fun of for it last time?

As for all the expansion talk, this is an entirely different game by an entirely different team. It's barely long enough to be more than an expansion I'd bet, but I still understand in concept why it isn't.

Again, I consider these bittersweet, as they're so close to being great yet so far in too many ways.

COD kiddies will develop motion sickness on Aerowalk with a semi-decent QW player.

Not that the original COD\MoH were ever about twitch. We always saw them as a counterpoint to Q3. Strategically slinking around with a bolt action rifle in MoH. I suppose things are different today with COD being the new "twitch". As twitchy as a slow ass gamepad can get.

Based on the amount of stupidity running rampant through this thread, I won't quote anyone specific.

Here's a few points I wanted to make, though:

-Game experience is highly opinionated.-Opinions cannot, and should not, be forced onto other people.-Just because you don't like a game does not mean it is garbage.

I've played every Battlefield game since it's original release. I've also played every COD game since the original. The two series have two completely different objectives. BF focuses more on teamwork, vehicles, and less on "twitch" shooting. CoD focuses more on each individual team member, customization, and adrenaline.

This isn't an expansion pack. It's a new game, with a new setting. People bitched and moaned that they needed to get the setting out of the Middle East, and they listened. We're dealing with WW3 now, a concept that has been surprisingly underused lately. Yeah, some of the perks will probably be the same. Probably some similar killstreaks too. But this isn't a mod or anything, its a rehauled game. The only thing I could possibly see as a point for people that few this games as expansions is that the engine is the same. But the games are being cranked out yearly and the engine really is fine, so I don't see the problem. You really think a studio would charge $20 for an "expansion" that has 8-10 hours of single player, brand new maps, guns, perks, and game types? That would be an absurd business model.

I just can't believe it that people complain these games get released too often, and then turn around and complain when the HL:2 Episodes are taking too long. If anything, *those* are just "expansions", and they are taking way too damn long to make them. But that's a topic for another time.

I really don't see the hate for CoD. It's probably because I play it on a console, so I never had to deal with the hackers or the dedicated server issue. The game is fun. Make a squad with a few of your buddies and have a good time. Do some search and destroy, get that heart-rate up, and then laugh at your friend when he completely messes up the clutch save. Do a free for all with riot shield and throwing knives only. It can be a lot of fun if you know what you are doing.

I like the BF series as much as the next guy, but there is only so much running across the map I can do before I need a change, and that's why CoD's tiny maps are perfect at what they do. They keep you in the action at all times, and the games focuses on you, and you alone. What killstreaks do you want? perks? Everyone is watching *you* try to win the match.

On a seperate note, I think the word twitch shooting is being overused lately. There hasn't been a single twitch shooter since CSS, in my opinion. If you want a real skill check, that's where you go.

I bet it will look like the old engine, but with a few extra addons to make it look like BF3. The only ppl who will be buyin it will be the true console spottied kiddies who dont know any better, or them ones who think COD is the best thing since finding a porno in your daddies wardrobe.

Which pathetic moron in their right mind would put COD against Quake for skill factor, COD hasn't a chance ever, I played on quake world mainly Q1 CTF and it can never be beaten.

I might have provoked the man child with my comment, But i was "OWNING" on these types of games when he was fresh out of third grade ..and the game was called Quake and we played on servers called Quake World...same type of game now...Just Different textures and "upgrades"